sw1mushfandomcom-20200215-history
Forum:The Imperial "Civil Wars"
It seems that the primary concern is over the naming of the events and naming of certain groups (Whitecoats). The only non-factual information presented in the articles are the names. The actual events and what transpired remains the same (it's all pretty vague, to say the least). I'll start with the first "civil war" article and proceed onward. First Civil War The period immediately after Palpatine was killed and until Valak took the throne in 8 ABY was a major era of turmoil for the Empire. It saw leaders crop up and disappear every few months, vast amount of territory lost, and mass defections and the rise of warlords who stole even more territory. The warlords fought amongst each other, slowly eating the Empire away. The only reason I used the "civil war" name is because it's used so in official SW canon, albeit the canonical Imperial Civil War lasted several more years and the specific events (Isard being a major player, etc) greatly changed - but the spirit remains the same, in that the Empire was fragmented by warlords, they changed leaders every few months, and they lacked direction, objective, and sensibility. It seemed to fit the civil war term for me because it was Imperial on Imperial. However, since no one seems to like that term (even though it has been used for several years now), it can be changed. My suggestion is "The Years of Turmoil" or the "Years of Unrest." It lasted a good four years, enough time to see the Empire devolve from a galaxy-spanning hyperpower to a backwater (although it would make a come back eventually). Second Civil War The second event was a lot more narrow and specific. It lasted less than a year and involved only two distinct groups (not various warlords as in the first civil war). It fits the exact definition of a civil war a lot better than any of the other events. You had this group representing Palpatine, claiming to be the revived Emperor himself, and their big military resources, going to war against Valak's regime. So I don't see any reason not to call it a civil war. Alternative names can be used, such as the "Great Insurrection" or "The True Imperial Uprising." But it's not so much an uprising because it was a full-blown war, hence why I think it should just stay Civil War. Third Civil War I lumped several interconnecting events under one article, and what was produced was the "third civil war." In retrospect, it may not be the best name, but at the time I wasn't considering what to name it, just to get the information down. Now, I have personal issues with this matter (obviously), but more than just because I left the Empire over it to form the NIM. The initial plot was just down-right dumb (and this is not to Lorn or Korolov). I found out how it all began (not sure if people will remember), but it went like this: OOCly, people did not like Valak because of his immature behavior and it was decided to remove him from FH. He was going to remain as Emperor ICly for the benefit of the story, but it proved incapable of working out, so it was decided to nix him all together. What developed was absurdity. Osbourne, then an Admiral, delivered a message to the Imperial fleet, announcing he was promoting himself to Grand Admiral and that he had discovered documents implicating Valak in a financial "scandal" - diverting funds to FoxTech Industries and what-not. So he called Valak a traitor for doing so and with that Valak was removed and Osbourne was coroneted after several months of interim. How ridiculous is that? Not only is it unbelievable to assume a mere admiral can accuse the Galactic Emperor (one that had great loyalty from the troops) of laundering credits, COMPNOR would have assassinated Osbourne before he did anything. The soldiers would have laughed at him and he would have been the laughing stock of the galaxy. But it went forward and it set the stage for what was to come next. Osbourne resigned after several months of inactivity, and it was decided to bring back Lorn Rhys. I had my own personal reservations about this, because ICly Lorn was a known traitor for the Vigilant incident, and that, coupled with OOC matters, led to the formation of the NIM (which eventually evolved into a movement to restore Valak to the throne, after an IC meeting with him aboard our ship). But then things got more complicated. Lorn was ICly "killed," and Darth Pain popped out of nowhere to become Empress. In my opinion, it was poor storytelling; I don't think it's believable to assume some unknown lady can take the throne, with little to no established support. Darth Pain didn't last very long. I remember reading a few IGNews posts but that was about the extent of it. After several months, Lorn returned in the form of Malus, and he took the throne for himself. NIM opposed him all the while, and I do recall there being a bit of un-RP'd background stuff where some Moffs did not like what was going on, but they were dealt with after some off-screen confrontation. The next major event I lumped with this was the fall of Coruscant; Malus was FH at the time and was still ICly Emperor, but NIM was no longer operating (I remember because I took part in the Coruscant TP as a NR starfighter pilot and as a civilian working with Luke and Fegbarr). The next event came several months later; Malus was overthrown by Malign, locked in carbonite, and reconstruction of the Empire. Behind the scenes, I now know that Vadim was pulling Malign's strings, but that's irrelevant for this discussion. I returned to the Empire as Danik and awarded by Malign for being an opposition leader to Malus. That, in my opinion, is when this "era" ends and when the next era in Imperial history, the Empire's rebirth and the blitzkrieg, begins. So, in short, you're right that the civil war is an improper term, but a name is needed to encompass these events which are all interconnected and very much related. But, you have to understand what I was working with: I really, really want to make an effort with the community to erase Osbourne's coup against Valak from the history books and retcon a much more reasonable plot into it. There is no way Valak would be overthrown over money issues (especially since FTI was an Imperial operation to begin with). That is why I don't even mention it on Valak's article. It's too stupid to accept as canon to the MUSH. But, to sum up, I can't think of a suitable replacement name - I'm not very creative. But it has to be something that would be appropiate for IC history books/this article. Whitecoats A sub-issue over this is the Whitecoats moniker. It was coined by Hawke due to a lack of real information about this period of time. It was used to make a distinction between loyalists/NIM/etc and Lorn's people rather than being bland and saying "Lorn's group." To me, story is more important than anything else, so I think the Whitecoats moniker fits well into the story (Lorn was, afterall, ISB/COMPNOR). So it's not an unbelievable stretch to let it be. Honestly, I don't see why it is a bad thing - all it's doing is breathing some life into it and it fits with the events well. I also find it interesting you seem to be accepting of the "True Empire" term. They weren't called the "True Empire" at the time, just a pro-Palpatine rebellion - it's something I put in much later. So why accept the "True Empire" but not "Whitecoats"? I don't think there's issue with the rest, though; Lorn did have major relations with COMPNOR/ISB and the Stormtroopers (through you), as indicated by the article, and he did crash the SSD into Selene, and he did have opposition from the regular military (many of them being loyal to Osbourne). A lot of players did leave the Empire after the coup, almost all from the Navy or Army, and I will always hold to the conviction that players are worth more than NPCs. Summary Imperial Civil War changed to Years of Turmoil or Years of Unrest, or something suitable. 2nd Civil WAr becomes just Imperial Civil War or the True Empire Insurrection, or something suitable. Third Civil War, as I presented it, becomes something suitable. I can't think of a name to encompass those events. --16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Discussion I thought it might be best to create a new 'discussion' subsection so that we aren't spamming Danik's intros with our comments. -- SW1 Kyle 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC) * Here are my suggestions: I agree that the First Civil War shouldn't be called a civil war at all. I like where we're headed with something akin to "turmoil years". All we really need to do is consider a core title for the article, and any nicknames people want to give it can be redirects. The name Imperial Post-Endor Power Struggle comes to mind, but it could be anything really. What's important is the core article's name. Regarding the Second Civil War, I would just rename this something like The Imperial Civil War of 11 ABY, that way it's listed quite simply as a civil war and with a year, for generic-ness's sake. Again, any nicknames given could be redirects. Regarding the Third Civil War, I would agree that it needs to be given a non-civil war name. Again, coming up with a core name is the challenge. I would be hesitant to retcon what happened between Osbourne and Valak, unless we're able to come up with some key modification that makes it more believeable and dramatic. Plus, this would be something we'd NEED to get approved by Minkar or the RPA. Yes, people in their immaturity can write stupid stories, but we should be careful how we modify it. It was quite clearly an administrative failure to develop good story. I also have a really good idea about the Whitecoats. It's quite clear that Lorn Rhys didn't give his organization any name. But it's also entirely possible that, ICly, IC historians within the Empire gave his Empire the name "Whitecoats" after the fact. In this way, we're not completely twinking on the actual story as it was RPed, but instead, we're adding something legitimate in the IC realm through the venue of NPC historians who penned the nickname 'Whitecoats' well after the event was finished. -- SW1 Kyle 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC) * That is precisely what I was doing, Kyle, in employing the name "Whitecoats" — looking at it from the perspective of a historian tasked with writing about a past event. Did the Army of the Confederacy really go into battle calling themselves "The Grays"? No, but we look back on the Civil War as the Blues vs. the Grays. I looked at the whole thing as members of the opposition (Osbourne's loyalists) looking across the battlelines towards Lorn Rhys's forces and muttering, "Those damned whitecoats are at it again." Granted, I may have elaborated a bit much by saying that Stormtroopers were clad in gull-grey skinsuits under their white armor, and if someone wants to right, negate, or improve that, they may. Ideally, I'd like to see Lorn Rhys himself do the work, which is the point of having this Wiki in the first place. -- Hawke / Rtufo 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC) **Who calls Confederates, 'The Grays?' Rebels, Johnny Reb, yeah, but those were both names used during the time by combatants on both sides of the field. In this case, you have a name created entirely OOCly by someone who had no involvement in the events at the time. Sure it could be a 'Historical view' but I think that if the originator of that plot objects to an arbitrary term cooked up by someone who wasn't even involved, that their objection should have more merit, than using 'NPC Historian'. In this case, I think the Whitecoats article needs to be deleted and links to it removed and if Rhys wants to write a more generic article about the members of his coup plot since that should be given preference on the Wiki.--ImperialFH 18:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) *The True Empire and the Civil Wars. :-I don't necessarily like the term 'True Empire' or agree that it really has to have a formal name, but none of the participants in that plot have objected to the name or the information on the page so I don't . That debate is not entirely relevant to this one though and I will save my thoughts on that for another time and place. :-For the first Civil War, I think Empire/Years in Turmoil is a good start but that we can come up with something more creative. :- The second, while it could be techincally a civil war, there are better conflicts that can accurately reflect the event like The XXXX Inssurection where XXXX is whatever name false Palpatines governemnt goes by, it can be True Empire or whatever comes of that. :-The Third needs to be broken up into articles that represent each of the component periods. Osbourne's Coup/ Rhys's Coup/Vadim's Coup....I am sure we can come up with more creative terms for those events as well. **Completely as an aside, Osbourne tried several times to launch a full military coup against Valak, but was stopped twice by the ST's and RG saying that if he did, he wouldn't live very long. He backed away untill he came up with the FoxTech scandal, which while true was completely contrived. --ImperialFH 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC) *Again, as I have already stated in the discussion on the talk page for the Third Civil War, Lorn was never affiliated with or a part of COMPNOR nor the ISB. Lorn was first a Stormtrooper, then inducted into the ShadowGuard (part of BofO), then became the head of ShadowGuard, then became Director of BofO, then head of Imperial Intelligence/Ubiqtorate, then finally was a Moff in charge of Bespin, Tatooine and Pride-1/OS Redemption. Shortly before the assault on OS/R to shut down the Vigilant, Lorn was kidnapped by a group of indy's and discarded on Caspar when they learned he was of no value. Lorn did not resurface until four years later, as a pariah, and months later made his power play to knock out Osbourne from power. There was never a period of time where Lorn served in COMPNOR. Additionally, Lorn was a purist as it pertained to the New Order. He frowned on the bits of individuality that some players indulged in as it pertained to uniforms and organization. From the player's perspective, I made an effort to return the faction to canon. So, from both an OOC and IC perspective, taking any moniker for his 'forces' (comprised of Indy, CSA, and Valak loyalists), dressing those units differently, or what have you, goes completely opposite from what happened and intended. From a 'historian' perspective, there should be great care taken when writing anything that is not based on actual RPed events, unless it is approved by MUSH staff and RPA. If your goal is to have the wiki as a fictional resource or story board based on the MUSH, then I suppose anything goes. If the intent is for the wiki to be a thematic supplement to the MUSH, which I believe is the case, then it is not good practice to just write things 'for flavor'. If there can be no compromise on this issue, then a separate template, tag, category, whatever should be made that indicates that specific information in an article is not based on logs or Admin/RPA contribution so that players that are new to the MUSH are not confused as to what is based on actual RP'd IC events / RPA approved background and what was added for flavor and fleshing out IC events. --Lorn Rhys 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC) *Sorry. The lack of information makes it hard to discern the real facts. As far as I can tell, from reading old logs and SWINFO files, for whatever reason the BofO was considered a part of COMPNOR in the old MUSH days. I can't tell why. So I think that's where the confusion arose where I mixed you up with COMPNOR. I really don't care if the Whitecoat moniker stays or go. I just think that, for the benefit of the story, there should be some, any, nickname for the group that opposing forces/historians/future generations call them. Doesn't have to be official, Lorn never has to call them anything other than his men, they never have to call themselves by that nickname... but I think it's unfair to say that no one, ever, can give a nickname to the group that catches on amongst some groups. I also think that there should be one overarching article for Osbourne/Rhys/Malign coups because each event built from one another, were all interconnected and played on one another. It all happened within a year, sometimes within just months of each other. There can then be individual articles for each event that delve deeper and explain more specific details, whereas the overarching article is just a summary of how they all connected and what they meant to each other. As for Prospero's last point... I have a near complete recollection of the event and it was just stupid. Not only was FTI a COMPNOR front, the Emperor can damn do as well as he pleases with Imperial funds. He is the Emperor and the supreme ruler. You can't question him. It's not a democracy. I know that it wasn't your idea, but the people who came up with it, Osbourne, Pym, etc... I have no idea what they were smoking (no offense to them). Furthermore, no one can appoint themselves Grand Admiral when there are so many competing admirals in high command, and the soldiers could care less about a "money scandal". Especially the Stormtroopers and Royal Guard, who are completely brainwashed to stand by the Emperor no matter what. So I don't see how the plot ever got off. I think that something should be done to make a correction to this brief event. I know that Valak was kidnapped by Jedi and imprisoned for several months - to me, that helps explain Valak's downfall far better than a scandal. Maybe you guys on the MUSH can work with that. But back to the topic at hand... we'll bring it to a vote. Imperial Civil War #1 names Possible names... place your votes. If you come up with a name, add it here. *The Years of Turmoil *The Years of Unrest *The Lost Years (for Imperials) *The Great Years (for NRites) *The Post-Endor Power Struggle *Anything else that is added Imperial Civil War #2 names Possible names... place your votes. If you come up with a name, add it here. *The Imperial Civil War of 11 ABY *The Imperial Civil War *The True Empire Insurrection *The True Empire War *The True Empire Revolt *The Imperial Insurrection *The Usurper War *The Fools' Revolt (people were fools for thinking Palptine was revived) *Anything else that is added (as you can tell I'm not very good with names) Imperial Civil War #3 names Possible names... place your votes. If you come up with a name, add it here. This is for the overarching struggle that began with Osbourne and ended with Malign taking the throne for Vadim. Each unique event (Osbourne's coup, Lorn's coup, etc) will have names also. *The Great Struggle for the Throne *The War for the Throne *The Great Confusion *Other ideas... --Danik Kreldin 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Updates *Since there was zero consensus, I went ahead and did it myself. Imperial Civil War has become Post-Endor Imperial power struggle, 2nd has become Imperial Civil War, and 3rd has become War of the Throne, which will encompass the back and forth conflicts and coups over the throne until it finally settles on Vadim. --Danik Kreldin 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC) **Finished updating the War of the Throne article... I'm looking to Korolov/Rhys to proof-read and validate its accuracy or make note of anything that stands out as inaccurate. Also updated Battle of Selene and Battle of Dreven to better reflect the events, and added Second Battle of Dreven as a battle I had forgotten about; I recall news posts about Malign's fleet attacking Malus and overthrowing him at Dreven. --Danik Kreldin 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ***I don't think these new names are very creative either, but they are at least more accurate than what was there. Also, I wouldn't call a lack of response in two weeks as zero consensus, probably just the forum getting buried in additions and the holidays. As far as the Second Battle of Dreven, did it even happen? I wasn't there for it, Malus wasn't there, AFAIK it was a background event that Tyler used to tie up loose ends. He can probably add more input into what happened. --Korolov 20:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) *** I think that the substitutes for the 1st and 3rd 'Imperial Civil Wars' are quite apt. The 'Post-Endor...' is a bit clunky, but very straightforward in that it conveys what was happening. The 'War of the Throne' seems rather poetic, and nicely covers up the (apparently) convoluted mess that was going up at the time, both IC and OOC. I don't think the battle against the Palpatine impostor should be considered an Imperial Civil War, though. Especially based on the information in the article, it didn't really shake the foundations of the Empire anyways. Probably a name to minimize it would be better. How about the "False Emperor Crisis" or the "Impostor Insurrection"? Assuming that the false Palpatine's side really wasn't called the 'True Empire.' -- Quietus 07:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC) *A little late, but I am just figuring out this whole wiki thing. As for Dreven what I can say is that when I was Warlord I sent a fleet commanded my Drayson Honos to blockade the world while I solidified power on Selene. I established a Moff's council even had a few council sessions ICly with Scaven and a few other PCs whose names have left me. After awhile and some discussion with the Wiz Staff it was agreed Malus could be removed. Since his player wasn't around for quite sometime we just had it as if he was sort've under "house arrest" in his palace with his retainers. Once I got the okay to remove Malus I wanted to do it no lethally just in case he wanted to bring the PC back. So the cruel irony of carbonite was used there, we thought it poetic at the time. What happen on Dreven is really simple and was RP'ed, though I lost the logs on an old machine that died. From what I can recall: Drayson's fleet held the space around the planet and then Malign and Sinestra went to the world as a team. We killed all the nobles, guards, and retainers in the palace. While Sinestra was doing clean up, Malign confronted Malus and (this confrontation is off camera) managed to over power/defeat him in combat or by trickery and had him encased in carbonite. So the reason Malign split the government in half initially: The Military Government (governed by Moffs) and the Imperial Throne was to begin the process of taking power away from Malus and his allies and shifting the power into the Admirals and Regional Governors so they could execute a war. Once Vadim surfaced the court was re-established he got a nice room on a Destroyer and Coruscant and the Empire shifted away from Military rule back to Emperor rule. TylerDamion 18:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)